The SER Primer on

Ecological Restoration

A Publication of the Science & Policy Working Group2

April 2002 (First Edition) 3

Contents
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.

Overview
Definition of Ecological Restoration
Attributes of Restored Ecosystems
Explanations of Terms
Reference Ecosystems
Exotic Species
Monitoring and Evaluation
Restoration Planning
Relationship between Restoration Practice and Restoration Ecology
Relationship of Restoration to Other Activities
Integration of Ecological Restoration into Larger Programs

1. This document should be cited as: Society for

Ecological Restoration Science & Policy Working
Group. 2002. The SER Primer on Ecological
Restoration. www.ser.org/. This citation can be
abbreviated in text as: (SER 2002).
2. The principal authors of this Primer were Andr
Clewell (Quincy, FLUSA), James Aronson
(Montpellier, France), and Keith Winterhalder
(Sudbury, ON Canada). Clewell initially proposed
the Primer and wrote its first draft. Aronson and
Winterhalder, in collaboration with Clewell, revised
the Primer into its present form. Winterhalder, in his
capacity as Chairperson of SERs Science & Policy
Working Group, coordinated this effort and invited
other Working Group members to participate. Eric
Higgs (Victoria, BC Canada) crafted the Overview
section. Dennis Martinez (Douglas City, CA USA)
contributed a position paper that became the basis
for text pertaining to cultural ecosystems. Other
Working Group members provided critiques and
suggestions as the work progressed, including
Richard Hobbs (Murdoch, WA Australia), James
Harris (London, UK), Carolina Murcia (Cali,
Colombia), and John Rieger (San Diego, CAUSA).
The SPWG acknowledges Eric Higgs, Chairperson
of SERs Board of Directors, for his encouragement
and for bringing the Primer before SERs Directors
for its official adoption as a SER document on 6
April 2002, by unanimous vote.
3. This document supercedes SERs Project Policies
that were initially published in Restoration Ecology
2(2):132-133, 1994, and that were later posted on
SERs website. This document also supercedes the
policy on Project Evaluation that was posted on the
SER website. SER environmental policies, initially
published in Restoration Ecology 1(3):206-207,
1993, remain in effect.

page
1
2
3
3
6
7
7
8
8
9
9

Section 1. Overview
Ecological restoration is an intentional activity that initiates or
accelerates the recovery of an ecosystem with respect to its health,
integrity and sustainability. Frequently, the ecosystem that requires
restoration has been degraded, damaged, transformed or entirely destroyed
as the direct or indirect result of human activities. In some cases, these
impacts to ecosystems have been caused or aggravated by natural agencies
such as wildfire, floods, storms, or volcanic eruption, to the point at which
the ecosystem cannot recover its predisturbance state or its historic
developmental trajectory.
Restoration attempts to return an ecosystem to its historic trajectory.
Historic conditions are therefore the ideal starting point for restoration
design. The restored ecosystem will not necessarily recover its former
state, since contemporary constraints and conditions may cause it to
develop along an altered trajectory. The historic trajectory of a severely
impacted ecosystem may be difficult or impossible to determine with
accuracy. Nevertheless, the general direction and boundaries of that
trajectory can be established through a combination of knowledge of the
damaged ecosystems pre-existing structure, composition and functioning,
studies on comparable intact ecosystems, information about regional
environmental conditions, and analysis of other ecological, cultural and
historical reference information. These combined sources allow the historic
trajectory or reference conditions to be charted from baseline ecological
data and predictive models, and its emulation in the restoration process
should aid in piloting the ecosystem towards improved health and integrity.
Restoration represents an indefinitely long-term commitment of land
and resources, and a proposal to restore an ecosystem requires thoughtful
deliberation. Collective decisions are more likely to be honored and

implemented than are those that are made unilaterally. For

that reason, it behooves all stakeholders to arrive at the
decision to initiate a restoration project by consensus. Once
the decision to restore is made, the project requires careful
and systematic planning and a monitored approach towards
ecosystem recovery. The need for planning intensifies
when the unit of restoration is a complex landscape of
contiguous ecosystems.
Interventions employed in restoration vary widely
among projects, depending on the extent and duration of
past disturbances, cultural conditions that have shaped the
landscape, and contemporary constraints and opportunities.
In the simplest circumstances, restoration consists of
removing or modifying a specific disturbance, thereby
allowing ecological processes to bring about an
independent recovery. For example, removing a dam
allows the return of an historical flooding regime. In more
complex circumstances, restoration may also require the
deliberate reintroduction of native species that have been
lost, and the elimination or control of harmful, invasive
exotic species to the greatest practicable extent. Often,
ecosystem degradation or transformation has multiple,
protracted sources, and the historical constituents of an
ecosystem are substantially lost. Sometimes the
developmental trajectory of a degraded ecosystem is
blocked altogether, and its recovery through natural
processes appears to be delayed indefinitely. In all of these
cases, however, ecological restoration aims to initiate or
facilitate the resumption of those processes which will
return the ecosystem to its intended trajectory.
When the desired trajectory is realized, the ecosystem
under manipulation may no longer require external
assistance to ensure its future health and integrity, in which
case restoration can be considered complete. Nevertheless,
the restored ecosystem often requires continuing
management to counteract the invasion of opportunist
species, the impacts of various human activities, climate
change, and other unforeseeable events. In this respect, a
restored ecosystem is no different from an undamaged
ecosystem of the same kind, and both are likely to require
some level of ecosystem management. Although ecosystem
restoration and ecosystem management form a continuum
and often employ similar sorts of intervention, ecological
restoration aims at assisting or initiating recovery, whereas
ecosystem management is intended to guarantee the
continued well-being of the restored ecosystem thereafter.

Some ecosystems, particularly in developing countries,

are still managed by traditional, sustainable cultural
practices. Reciprocity exists in these cultural ecosystems
between cultural activities and ecological processes, such
that human actions reinforce ecosystem health and
sustainability. Many cultural ecosystems have suffered
from demographic growth and external pressures of various
kinds, and are in need of restoration. The restoration of
such ecosystems normally includes the concomitant
recovery of indigenous ecological management practices,
including support for the cultural survival of indigenous
peoples and their languages as living libraries of traditional
ecological knowledge. Ecological restoration encourages
and may indeed be dependent upon long-term participation
of local people. Cultural conditions in traditional cultures
are currently undergoing unprecedented global change. To
accommodate this change, ecological restoration may
accept and even encourage new culturally appropriate and
sustainable practices that take into account contemporary
conditions and constraints. In this regard, the North
American focus on restoring pristine landscapes makes
little or no sense in places like Europe where cultural
landscapes are the norm, or in large parts of Africa, Asia
and Latin America, where ecological restoration is
untenable unless it manifestly bolsters the ecological base
for human survival.
What makes ecological restoration especially inspiring
is that cultural practices and ecological processes can be
mutually reinforcing. Accordingly, it is not surprising that
interest in ecological restoration is growing rapidly
worldwide and that, in most cases, cultural beliefs and
practices are drawn upon to help determine and shape of
what is to be performed under the rubric of restoration.
The definition presented below, the one officially
endorsed by the Society for Ecological Restoration, is
sufficiently general to allow a wide variety of approaches
to restoration, while giving prominence to the historicallyrich idea of recovery.

Section 2. Definition of Ecological

Restoration
Ecological restoration is the process of assisting the
recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded,
damaged, or destroyed.

The SER Science & Policy Working Group, May 2002, is James Aronson (France), Andy Clewell (USA), Wally Covington (USA), Jim
Harris (UK), Eric Higgs (Canada), Richard J. Hobbs (Australia), Dennis Martinez (Indigenous Peoples), Marc A. Matsil (USA), Carolina
Murcia (Colombia), John Rieger (USA), and Keith Winterhalder (Canada).

Section 3. Attributes of Restored

Ecosystems

6. The restored ecosystem is suitably integrated into a

larger ecological matrix or landscape, with which it
interacts through abiotic and biotic flows and exchanges.

This section addresses the question of what is meant by

recovery in ecological restoration. An ecosystem has
recovered - and is restored - when it contains sufficient
biotic and abiotic resources to continue its development
without further assistance or subsidy. It will sustain itself
structurally and functionally. It will demonstrate resilience
to normal ranges of environmental stress and disturbance.
It will interact with contiguous ecosystems in terms of
biotic and abiotic flows and cultural interactions.

8. The restored ecosystem is sufficiently resilient to

endure the normal periodic stress events in the local
environment that serve to maintain the integrity of the
ecosystem.

The nine attributes listed below provide a basis for

determining when restoration has been accomplished. The
full expression of all of these attributes is not essential to
demonstrate restoration. Instead, it is only necessary for
these attributes to demonstrate an appropriate trajectory of
ecosystem development towards the intended goals or
reference. Some attributes are readily measured. Others
must be assessed indirectly, including most ecosystem
functions, which cannot be ascertained without research
efforts that exceed the capabilities and budgets of most
restoration projects.

9. The restored ecosystem is self-sustaining to the same

degree as its reference ecosystem, and has the potential
to persist indefinitely under existing environmental
conditions. Nevertheless, aspects of its biodiversity,
structure and functioning may change as part of normal
ecosystem development, and may fluctuate in response to
normal periodic stress and occasional disturbance events
of greater consequence. As in any intact ecosystem, the
species composition and other attributes of a restored
ecosystem may evolve as environmental conditions
change.

1. The restored ecosystem contains a characteristic

assemblage of the species that occur in the reference
ecosystem and that provide appropriate community
structure.
2. The restored ecosystem consists of indigenous species
to the greatest practicable extent. In restored cultural
ecosystems, allowances can be made for exotic
domesticated species and for non-invasive ruderal and
segetal species that presumably co-evolved with them.
Ruderals are plants that colonize disturbed sites, whereas
segetals typically grow intermixed with crop species.
3. All functional groups necessary for the continued
development and/or stability of the restored ecosystem
are represented or, if they are not, the missing groups
have the potential to colonize by natural means.
4. The physical environment of the restored ecosystem is
capable of sustaining reproducing populations of the
species necessary for its continued stability or
development along the desired trajectory.
5. The restored ecosystem apparently functions normally
for its ecological stage of development, and signs of
dysfunction are absent.

7. Potential threats to the health and integrity of the

restored ecosystem from the surrounding landscape have
been eliminated or reduced as much as possible.

Other attributes gain relevance and should be added to

this list if they are identified as goals of the restoration
project. For example, one of the goals of restoration might
be to provide specified natural goods and services for
social benefit in a sustainable manner. In this respect, the
restored ecosystem serves as natural capital for the accrual
of these goods and services. Another goal might be for the
restored ecosystem to provide habitat for rare species or to
harbor a diverse genepool for selected species. Other
possible goals of restoration might include the provision of
aesthetic amenities or the accommodation of activities of
social consequence, such as the strengthening of a
community through the participation of individuals in a
restoration project.

Section 4. Explanations of Terms.

Various technical terms are introduced throughout this
document. Some of these terms may be unfamiliar to
readers who are not ecologists, while others have multiple
connotations from differential usage. To reduce the
potential for misunderstandings, key terms are explained in
the manner in which they are used in this document.
An ecosystem consists of the biota (plants, animals,
microorganisms) within a given area, the environment that
sustains it, and their interactions. Populations of species

that comprise the biota are collectively identified as the

biotic community. This community is frequently
segregated on the basis of taxonomic status (e.g., the
insect community) or life form (e.g., the tree community).
Assemblages of organisms can also be recognized by their
functional roles in the ecosystem (e.g. primary producers,
herbivores, carnivores, decomposers, nitrogen fixers,
pollinators), in which case they are known as functional
groups. The physical or abiotic environment that sustains
the biota of an ecosystem includes the soil or substrate, the
atmospheric or aqueous medium, hydrology, weather and
climate, topographic relief and aspect, the nutrient regime,
and the salinity regime. Habitat refers to the dwelling
place of an organism or community that provides the
requisite conditions for its life processes.
An ecosystem can be recognized in a spatial unit of any
size, from a microsite containing only a few individuals to
an area showing some degree of structural and taxonomic
homogeneity such as a small-scale and community-based
wetland ecosystem, or a large-scale and biome-based
tropical rainforest ecosystem. Ecological restoration can
be conducted at a wide variety of scales, but in practice all
ecosystem restoration should be approached with a
spatially explicit landscape perspective, in order to ensure
the suitability of flows, interactions and exchanges with
contiguous ecosystems. A landscape consists of a mosaic
of two or more ecosystems that exchange organisms,
energy, water and nutrients. A legitimate and indeed
important object of much ecological restoration is the
reintegration of fragmented ecosystems and landscapes,
rather than focusing on just a single ecosystem.
A natural landscape or ecosystem is one that
developed by natural processes and that is self-organizing
and self-maintaining. A cultural landscape or ecosystem
is one that has developed under the joint influence of
natural processes and human-imposed organization. Many
grasslands and savannas are maintained in large part by the
human activities such as the regular ignition of surface
fires for hunting, gathering or animal husbandry. In
Europe, many of the species-rich meadows are cultural
ecosystems that arose following forest removal in the
Bronze Age, and have been maintained through mowing
and seasonal grazing by livestock. The repair of a damaged
meadow qualifies as ecological restoration, even though
the meadow ecosystem that is selected as the landscape of
reference derives from human activities. In another
example, a dense coniferous forest currently occupies large
parts of western North America. In the 19th century, much
of this forest was open and park-like with copious
herbaceous cover, owing to the frequent use of fire and

plant species utilization by indigenous tribal people. This

woodland seemed natural and its condition was sustainable
under the regime of tribal land usage. The return of this
ecosystem to an open, park-like woodland, occupied and
utilized in the traditional tribal manner, qualifies as
ecological restoration. Sustainable cultural practices are
traditional human land uses that maintain biodiversity and
productivity. In this context, the biota is valued as much for
its importance to ecosystem stability as it is for its shortterm worth as commodities. Perhaps all natural ecosystems
are culturally influenced in at least some small manner, and
this reality merits acknowledgement in the conduct of
restoration.
The terms degradation, damage, destruction and
transformation all represent deviations from the normal or
desired state of an intact ecosystem. The meanings of these
terms overlap, and their application is not always clear.
Degradation pertains to subtle or gradual changes that
reduce ecological integrity and health. Damage refers to
acute and obvious changes in an ecosystem. An ecosystem
is destroyed when degradation or damage removes all
macroscopic life, and commonly ruins the physical
environment as well. Transformation is the conversion of
an ecosystem to a different kind of ecosystem or land use
type.
A reference ecosystem can serve as the model for
planning an ecological restoration project, and later serve
in the evaluation of that project. In instances where the
object of restoration consists of two or more kinds of
ecosystems, the reference can be called the reference
landscape or, if only a portion of a local landscape is to be
restored, the reference landscape unit. The designated
ecosystem, landscape or unit can simply be called the
reference. Typically, the reference represents a point of
advanced development that lies somewhere along the
intended trajectory of the restoration. In other words, the
restored ecosystem is eventually expected to emulate the
attributes of the reference, and project goals and strategies
are developed in light of that expectation. The reference
can consist of one or several specified locations that
contain model ecosystems, a written description, or a
combination of both. Information collected on the
reference includes both biotic and abiotic components. A
more comprehensive discussion of the reference ecosystem
appears in Section 5.
An ecological trajectory is one that describes the
developmental pathway of an ecosystem through time. In
restoration, the trajectory begins with the unrestored
ecosystem and progresses towards the desired state of

recovery that is expressed in the goals of a restoration

project and embodied in the reference ecosystem. The
trajectory embraces all ecological attributes - biotic and
abiotic - of an ecosystem, and in theory can be monitored
by the sequential measurement of coherent suites of
ecological parameters. Any given trajectory is not narrow
and specific. Instead, a trajectory embraces a broad yet
confined range of potential ecological expressions through
time, as might be described mathematically by chaos
theory, or predicted by various ecological models. A fully
empirical description of a trajectory is impeded in two
ways. First, the number of ecosystem traits that can be
measured far exceeds those that can be reasonably
monitored, and the description of the trajectory over time is
necessarily incomplete. Second, the monitoring data lend
themselves to the plotting of trajectories for individual
parameters, but their combination into a single trajectory
representing the entire ecosystem requires highly complex
multivariate analysis of a kind that has yet to be developed.
This represents a critical research challenge for the future.
Biodiversity refers to biota in terms of taxonomic and
genetic diversity, the variety of life forms present and the
community structure thereby created, and the ecological
roles performed. The biota is organized hierarchically from
the level of the genome up to individual organisms,
species, populations, and communities. Two related aspects
of biodiversity are species composition, i.e. the taxonomic
array of species present, and species richness, i.e. the
number of different species present. The importance of an
ample recovery in species composition cannot be
overstated in restoration. All functional species-groups
must be represented if a restored ecosystem is to maintain
itself. Species redundancy, i.e. the presence of multiple
species that play similar roles in ecosystem dynamics,
provides assurance that ecosystem health is maintained in
response to stress, disturbance or other environmental
changes.
In order for an ecosystem to be well adapted to local
site conditions and to display resilience in response to a
stressful or changing environment, the species-populations
that comprise it must possess genetic fitness. An
ecosystem containing genetically fit populations is one that
is not only adapted to the current environmental regime,
but possesses some genetic redundancy, whereby the
gene pool contains a diversity of alleles that may be
selected in response to environmental change. Under
normal circumstances, the reintroduction of local ecotypes
is sufficient to maintain genetic fitness. Nevertheless, in
sites that have suffered substantial damage and consequent
alteration to their physical environment, the introduction of

diverse genetic stock may be the preferred strategy,

thereby allowing recombination and the eventual
development of novel, more adaptive ecotypes.
By community structure is meant the physiognomy or
architecture of the community with respect to the density,
horizontal stratification, and frequency distribution of
species-populations, and the sizes and life forms of the
organisms that comprise those communities.
Ecological processes or ecosystem functions are the
dynamic attributes of ecosystems, including interactions
among organisms and interactions between organisms and
their environment. Ecological processes are the basis for
self-maintenance in an ecosystem. Some restoration
ecologists limit the use of the term ecosystem functions
to those dynamic attributes which most directly affect
metabolism, principally the sequestering and
transformation of energy, nutrients, and moisture.
Examples are carbon fixation by photosynthesis, trophic
interactions, decomposition, and mineral nutrient cycling.
When ecosystem functions are strictly defined in this
manner, other dynamic attributes are distinguished as
ecosystem processes such as substrate stabilization,
microclimatic control, differentiation of habitat for
specialized species, pollination and seed dispersal.
Functioning at larger spatial scales is generally conceived
in more general terms, such as the long-term retention of
nutrients and moisture and overall ecosystem sustainability.
Ecosystem functions and processes, along with the
reproduction and growth of organisms, are what cause an
ecosystem to be self-renewing or autogenic. A common
goal for the restoration of any natural ecosystem is to
recover autogenic processes to the point where assistance
from restorationists is no longer needed. In this regard, the
central role of a restoration practitioner is to initiate
autogenic processes. Restoration practitioners commonly
assume that autogenic processes will commence once the
appropriate species composition and structure have been
re-established. This is not always a valid assumption, but it
is a reasonable starting point for ecosystem restoration.
Some dynamic processes are external in origin, such as
fires, floods, damaging wind, salinity shock from incoming
tides and storms, freezes, and droughts. These external
processes stress the biota and are sometimes designated as
stressors. The biota of any given ecosystem must be
resistant or resilient to the normal stress events that
periodically occur in the local environment. These events
serve to maintain ecosystem integrity, by preventing the
establishment of other species that are not adapted to those

stress conditions. For example, the tidal influx of saline

water is essential to maintain a salt marsh ecosystem and
prevent its conversion to a freshwater ecosystem. In
cultural ecosystems, human-mediated activities such as
burning or grazing qualify as stressors. The terms
disturbance or perturbation are sometimes used
interchangeably for stressor or stress event. However,
the term disturbance is restricted herein to impacts on
ecosystems that are more severe or acute than normal stress
events.
Resistance is the term describing an ecosystems ability
to maintain its structural and functional attributes in the
face of stress and disturbances. Resilience is the ability of
an ecosystem to regain structural and functional attributes
that have suffered harm from stress or disturbance.
Ecosystem stability is the ability of an ecosystem to
maintain its given trajectory in spite of stress; it denotes
dynamic equilibrium rather than stasis. Stability is
achieved in part on the basis of an ecosystems capacity for
resistance and resilience.
The terms ecosystem integrity and ecosystem health are
commonly used to describe the desired state of a restored
ecosystem. Although some authors use the terms
interchangeably, they are distinct in meaning. Ecosystem
integrity is the state or condition of an ecosystem that
displays the biodiversity characteristic of the reference,
such as species composition and community structure, and
is fully capable of sustaining normal ecosystem
functioning.

potential states that fall within the historic range of

variation of that ecosystem. The reference reflects a
particular combination of stochastic events that occurred
during ecosystem development.
In the same manner, an ecosystem that undergoes
restoration can develop into any of a potentially large array
of states. Any state that is expressed is acceptable as
restoration, as long as it is comparable to any of the
potential states into which its reference could have
developed. Thus, a simple reference inadequately expresses
the constellation of potential states and the historic range of
variation expressed by the restored ecosystem. Therefore, a
reference is best assembled from multiple reference sites
and, if necessary, other sources. This composite description
gives a more realistic basis for restoration planning.
Sources of information that can be used in describing
the reference include:
ecological descriptions, species lists and maps of the
project site prior to damage;
historical and recent aerial and ground-level photographs;
remnants of the site to be restored, indicating previous
physical conditions and biota;
ecological descriptions and species lists of similar intact
ecosystems;
herbarium and museum specimens;

Ecosystem health is the state or condition of an

ecosystem in which its dynamic attributes are expressed
within normalranges of activity relative to its ecological
stage of development. A restored ecosystem expresses
health if it functions normally relative to its reference
ecosystem, or to an appropriate set of restored ecosystem
attributes such as those that are listed above in Section 3. A
state of ecosystem integrity suggests, but does not
necessarily confirm, a concurrent state of ecosystem health
and a suitable abiotic environment.

Section 5. Reference Ecosystems

A reference ecosystem or reference serves as a model
for planning a restoration project, and later for its
evaluation. In its simplest form, the reference is an actual
site, its written description, or both. The problem with a
simple reference is that it represents a single state or
expression of ecosystem attributes. The reference that is
selected could have been manifested as any one of many

historical accounts and oral histories by persons familiar

with the project site prior to damage;
paleoecological evidence, e.g. fossil pollen, charcoal, tree
ring history, rodent middens.
The value of the reference increases with the amount of
information it contains, but every inventory is
compromised by limitations of time and funding.
Minimally, a baseline ecological inventory describes the
salient attributes of the abiotic environment and important
aspects of biodiversity such as species composition and
community structure. In addition, it identifies the normal
periodic stress events that maintain ecosystem integrity.
Descriptions of the reference for cultural ecosystems
should identify the cultural practices that are critical in
restoring and later in managing that ecosystem.
The description of a reference is complicated by two
factors that should be reconciled to assure its quality and

usefulness. First, a reference site is normally selected for

its well-developed expression of biodiversity, whereas a
site in the process of restoration typically exhibits an
earlier ecological stage. In such a case, the reference
requires interpolation back to a prior developmental phase
for purposes of both project planning and evaluation. The
need for interpretation diminishes where the developmental
stage at the restoration project site is sufficiently advanced
for direct comparison with the reference. Second, where
the goal of restoration is a natural ecosystem, nearly all
available references will have suffered some adverse
human-mediated impacts that should not be emulated.
Therefore, the reference may require interpretation to
remove these sources of artifice. For these reasons, the
preparation of the description of the reference requires
experience and sophisticated ecological judgement.
Written restoration project goals are critical for
determining the detail that is needed in the description of
the reference. For large, landscape-scale restoration for
which only general goals are prescribed, the description of
the reference can be equally general. In such instances,
aerial photographs may represent the most important
source of information for the preparation of the reference.
Restoration at a finer scale may require much more
detailed reference information, such as data that are
collected on-site in small plots.

Section 6. Exotic Species

An exotic species of plant or animal is one that was
introduced into an area where it did not previously occur
through relatively recent human activities. Since ecological
restoration of natural ecosystems attempts to recover as
much historical authenticity as can be reasonably
accommodated, the reduction or elimination of exotic
species at restoration project sites is highly desirable.
Nonetheless, financial and logistical constraints often exist,
and it is important to be realistic and pragmatic in
approaching exotic species control. In cultural landscapes,
exotic species are frequently an integral part of the
ecosystem, particularly as crops and livestock, and even as
ruderals or segetals that have presumably co-evolved with
these domesticated species. Such exotic species are
acceptable for cultural restoration.
In natural ecosystems, invasive exotic species
commonly compete with and replace native species.
However, not all exotic species are harmful. Indeed, some
even fulfill ecological roles formerly played by the native
species that have become rare or extirpated. In such
instances, the rationale for their removal may be tenuous.
Some exotic species were introduced centuries ago by

human or non-human agents and have become naturalized,

so that their status as an exotic is debatable. Other species
have migrated in and out of the region in response to
climatic fluctuations during the Holocene, and can scarcely
be regarded as exotics. Even if all exotic species are
removed from a restoration site, the opportunity for reinvasion may remain high. Therefore it becomes essential
for a policy to be developed for each exotic species
present, based upon biological, economic and logistical
realities. Highest priority is best reserved for the control or
extirpation of those species which pose the greatest threats.
These include invasive plant species that are particularly
mobile and pose an ecological threat at landscape and
regional levels, and animals that consume or displace
native species. Care should be taken to cause the least
possible disturbance to indigenous species and soils as
exotics are removed.
In some instances, non-indigenous plants are used for a
specific purpose in the restoration project, for example as
cover crops, nurse crops or nitrogen fixers. Unless these
are relatively short-lived, non-persistent species that will be
replaced in the course of succession, their eventual removal
should be included in restoration plans.

Section 7. Monitoring and Evaluation

A properly planned restoration project attempts to fulfill
clearly stated goals that reflect important attributes of the
reference ecosystem. Goals are attained by pursuing
specific objectives. The goals are ideals, and the objectives
are concrete measures taken to attain these goals. Two
fundamental questions should be asked with respect to the
evaluation of a restored ecosystem. Were the objectives
accomplished? Were the goals fulfilled? Answers to both
questions gain validity only if the goals and objectives
were stated prior to implementation of restoration project
work.
Ecosystems are complex, and no two intact ecosystems
are ever identical, at least not when examined in fine
resolution. For that reason, no restored ecosystem at a
project site can ever be identical to any single reference.
The number of ecosystem variables that can be used in an
evaluation is too great for all to be measured within a
reasonable period of time. The selection of which variables
to assess and which to ignore requires pragmatism and
value judgment by the evaluator.
Objectives are evaluated on the basis of performance
standards, also known as design criteria or success
criteria. These standards or criteria are conceived in large
part from an understanding of the reference ecosystem.

Performance standards provide an empirical basis for

determining whether or not project objectives have been
attained. Objectives, performance standards, and protocols
for monitoring and for data assessment should be
incorporated into restoration plans prior to the start of a
project. If interpretation of the data collected during
monitoring shows that performance standards have been
met, there can be no doubt that project objectives were
achieved, and the restored ecosystem is likely to be
sufficiently resilient to require little or no further assistance
from the restoration practitioner.
It is assumed that project goals are, or soon will be,
fulfilled once the objectives are attained. The validity of
this assumption is not guaranteed, since the objectives and
performance standards that were designated may prove to
be inadequate, and unanticipated environmental
vicissitudes can deflect the restoration trajectory. For that
reason, and since goals are ideals that resist strict empirical
measurement, an element of professional judgment and
subjectivity is inevitable in the evaluation of goals.
Three strategies exist for conducting an evaluation:
direct comparison, attribute analysis and trajectory
analysis. In direct comparison, selected parameters are
determined or measured in the reference and restoration
sites. If the reference description is thorough, as many as
20 or 30 parameters can be compared that include aspects
of both the biota and the abiotic environment. This can lead
to ambiguity of interpretation when the results of some
comparisons are close and others are not. The question
arises - how many parameters must have similar values and
how close must the values be before restoration goals are
satisfied? The most satisfactory approach may be to
carefully select a coherent suite of traits that collectively
describe an ecosystem fully yet succinctly.
In attribute analysis, attributes are assessed in relation
to the list provided in Section 3. In this strategy,
quantitative and semi-quantitative data from scheduled
monitoring and other inventories are useful in judging the
degree to which each goal has been achieved.
Trajectory analysis is a promising strategy, still under
development, for interpreting large sets of comparative
data. In this strategy, data collected periodically at the
restoration site are plotted to establish trends. Trends that
lead towards the reference condition confirm that the
restoration is following its intended trajectory.
Evaluations include the assessment of any stated goals
and objectives that pertain to cultural, economic and other

societal concerns. For these, the techniques of evaluation

may include those of the social sciences. The evaluation of
socio-economic goals is important to stakeholders and
ultimately to policy-makers who decide whether or not to
authorize and finance restoration projects.

Section 8. Restoration Planning

Plans for restoration projects include, at a minimum,
the following:
a clear rationale as to why restoration is needed;
an ecological description of the site designated for
restoration;
a statement of the goals and objectives of the restoration
project;
a designation and description of the reference;
an explanation of how the proposed restoration will
integrate with the landscape and its flows of organisms
and materials;
explicit plans, schedules and budgets for site preparation,
installation and post-installation activities, including a
strategy for making prompt mid-course corrections;
well-developed and explicitly stated performance
standards, with monitoring protocols by which the
project can be evaluated;
strategies for long-term protection and maintenance of
the restored ecosystem.
Where feasible, at least one untreated control plot
should be included at the project site, for purposes of
comparison with the restored ecosystem.

Section 9. Relationship between

Restoration Practice and Restoration
Ecology.
Ecological restoration is the practice of restoring
ecosystems as performed by practitioners at specific project
sites, whereas restoration ecology is the science upon
which the practice is based. Restoration ecology ideally
provides clear concepts, models, methodologies and tools
for practitioners in support of their practice. Sometimes the
practitioner and the restoration ecologist are the same
personthe nexus of practice and theory. The field of

restoration ecology is not limited to the direct service of

restoration practice. Restoration ecologists can advance
ecological theory by using restoration project sites as
experimental areas. For example, information derived from
project sites could be useful in resolving questions
pertaining to assembly rules of biotic communities.
Further, restored ecosystems can serve as references for
set-aside areas designated for nature conservation.

Section 10. Relationship of Restoration to

Other Activities
Ecological restoration is one of several activities that
strive to alter the biota and physical conditions at a site,
and are frequently confused with restoration. These
activities include reclamation, rehabilitation, mitigation,
ecological engineering and various kinds of resource
management, including wildlife, fisheries and range
management, agroforestry, and forestry. All of these
activities can overlap with and may even qualify as
ecological restoration if they satisfy all criteria expressed in
Section 3 of this document. Relative to other kinds of
activities, restoration generally requires more postinstallation aftercare to satisfy all these criteria.
Rehabilitation shares with restoration a fundamental
focus on historical or pre-existing ecosystems as models or
references, but the two activities differ in their goals and
strategies. Rehabilitation emphasizes the reparation of
ecosystem processes, productivity and services, whereas
the goals of restoration also include the re-establishment of
the pre-existing biotic integrity in terms of species
composition and community structure. Nonetheless,
restoration, as broadly conceived herein, probably
encompasses a large majority of project work that has
previously been identified as rehabilitation.
The term reclamation, as commonly used in the
context of mined lands in North America and the UK, has
an even broader application than rehabilitation. The main
objectives of reclamation include the stabilization of the
terrain, assurance of public safety, aesthetic improvement,
and usually a return of the land to what, within the regional
context, is considered to be a useful purpose. Revegetation,
which is normally a component of land reclamation, may
entail the establishment of only one or few species.
Reclamation projects that are more ecologically based can
qualify as rehabilitation or even restoration.
Mitigation is an action that is intended to compensate
environmental damage. Mitigation is commonly required in
the USA as a condition for the issuance of permits for
private development and public works projects that cause

damage to wetlands. Some, but perhaps relatively few,

mitigation projects satisfy the attributes of restored
ecosystems listed in Section 3, and thus qualify as
restoration.
The term creation has enjoyed recent usage,
particularly with respect to projects that are conducted as
mitigation on terrain that is entirely devoid of vegetation.
The alternate term fabrication is sometimes employed.
Frequently, the process of voiding a site causes sufficient
change in the environment to require the installation of a
different kind of ecosystem from that which occurred
historically. Creation that is conducted as supervised
engineering or landscape architecture cannot qualify as
restoration because restoration initiates ecosystem
development along a preferred trajectory, and thereafter
allows autogenic processes to guide subsequent
development with little or no human interference.
Ecological engineering involves manipulation of
natural materials, living organisms and the physicalchemical environment to achieve specific human goals and
solve technical problems. It thus differs from civil
engineering, which relies on human-made materials such as
steel and concrete. Predictability is a primary consideration
in all engineering design, whereas restoration recognizes
and accepts unpredictable development and addresses goals
that reach beyond strict pragmatism and encompass
biodiversity and ecosystem integrity and health. When
predictability is not at issue, the scope of many ecological
engineering projects could be expanded until they qualify
as restoration.

Section 11. Integration of Ecological

Restoration into a Larger Program.
Ecological restoration is sometimes only one of many
elements within a larger public or private sector enterprise,
such as development projects and programs for watershed
management, ecosystem management and nature
conservation. Project managers of these larger undertakings
should be aware of the complexities and costs involved in
planning and implementing ecological restoration. Cost
savings can be realized by careful coordination of
restoration activities with other aspects of a large program.
For this reason, project managers will benefit by
recognizing ecological restoration as an integral component
of a program. If this is done, the restorationist can
contribute substantively to all aspects of the program that
impinge on restoration. Moreover, the restorationist will be
in a position to ensure that all ecological restoration is well
conceived and fully realized. In this manner, the public
good is served.